TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Summary spring 06
Anders Mørch
TOOL 5100, 16.05.06 & 20.05.06
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Outline
• 4-5 foils from each of the previous
presentations, slightly edited
• Tries to capture the important points, but
strips off important context
• It requires the viewers to have read the
presented articles, otherwise the points
may not make sense
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
CSCW and groupware
• What is CSCW and groupware and their
relation to CSCL
• Historical development
• Basic problems addressed
• Research areas and concepts
• Components of groupware
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Aspects of groupware
• Common task / goal
• Interface to a shared environment
• In addition, because there are more than
one users:
– Division of labor, explicit role assignment
– Awareness of the others who are interacting
with the shared environment (often not
directly visible)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Relationships between HCI, CSCW,
and CSCL
computer science
distributed systems
cognitive science
HCI
AI
distributed cognition
communications
CSCW
office info. systems
sociology
CSCL
cooperative design
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
pedagogical design
eductational context
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Basic concepts in CSCW
• Ellis et al. identify the following three
terms are basic for CSCW research and
design:
– Communication
– Coordination
– Collaboration (sometimes divided into 2)
• Cooperation
• Collaboration
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Time/place matrix
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Extended matrix for CSCL
• One of the approaches to CSCL we address in
this course is to use asynchronous groupware for
educational purposes
• What additional dimensions or characteristics
would be necessary or convenient to add to the
time/place matrix in order to better account for
the factors that emerge when groupware is put in
an educational context, such as classrooms?
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Basic concepts in CSCL
• CSCL: Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning
• A field concerned with collaborative learning
and how it can be supported by computers
• The role of technology as “mediating artifact”,
i.e. mediation becomes a key concern
• It has been compared to the role of language in
conventional education (e.g. Vygotsky)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Bannon’s deconstruction of CSCL
• L: What do people mean by Learning?
• CL: What do people mean by Collaborative
Learning?
• SCL: What do people mean by Support for
Collaborative Learning?
• CSCL: What do people mean by Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning?
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Pitfalls of collaborative learning
•
Collaborative learning has been criticized as having
similar problems to those identified in problem-based
learning and cased-based instruction (where learners
work in groups)
–
–
–
–
•
The problem of lurkers (free passengers)
The complexity of modeling real situations
Reaching closure and scaling up
Process becomes more important than outcome
Many of these issues have been addressed by
improvements to CSCL and integration or alignment with
related fields (CSCW, Instructional design, etc.)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Factors important to CL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The nature of the collaborative task: e.g. physics problem
solving vs. editing a school newspaper
The nature of collaborators (peer, teacher-student,
student-computer, etc.)
The unit of analysis (individual, activity, group,
classroom)
The number of collaborators
The previous relationship between collaborators
The motivation of collaborators
The setting of collaboration: classroom, workplace, home
The time period of collaboration: from minutes to years
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
An open issue for discussion
•
•
•
Schmidt identifies socialization as a bottleneck to
Internet-based (distance) education , he believes it is not
reachable by the current generation of virtual universities
Do you agree that this is the factor impeding distance
education institutions to further progress, or are there
other factors that needs to be taken into account as well?
Hint: Think of ways for “socialization” to be redefined
for the network society so that it better aligns with the
needs of distance learners, the technological possibilities
they may have at their disposal, and the practices that can
be expected to be adopted in the near future
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Paradigms of instructional
technology
• Computer-aided instruction (CAI)
– Since ca. 1960
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS)
– Since ca. 1970
• Logo-as-Latin
– Since ca. 1980
• Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
– Since ca. 1990
• Note: these fields are active today, but sometimes
under new umbrellas and evolved to meet new needs
(e.g. instructional design, Lego/Logo, e-learning)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Computer-Aided Instruction
•
•
•
•
•
Psychological roots in behavioral science
Focus on support for instruction in teaching situations
(e.g. classroom) with the computer
The teacher’s role is to acquire knowledge and find
efficient ways to share it with the students
Often referred to as to as the “acquisition-transmission”
metaphor of teaching and learning
Today often associated with instructional design, such as
reusable learning objects and domain-specific
repositories that domain experts (e.g. teachers) can
search to find teaching material
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
•
•
•
•
•
The focus here, as often in CAI, is on computer support
for individual learning
More emphasis on the learner than the teacher
Psychological roots in cognitive science and Artificial
Intelligence (e.g. Newell & Simon, 1972)
The computer provides a cognitive model of human
information processing, representing novice and expert
problem solving, and track performance
An ITS provides expert advice to students as they solve
problems in well-defined domains (e.g. physics, math,
medical procedures)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Logo-as-Latin
•
•
•
•
•
Instead of learning by being taught, this approach focuses
on “learning by doing”
Psychological roots in the developmental psych of Piaget
and the philosophy of education of Dewey
Constructionism is a term that is often used as a label for
this approach
The student “constructs” by creating and running microworlds programmed in Logo (Papert, 1980)
Later efforts have extended this to higher level
languages, e.g. using Lego/Logo (e.g. Resnick, 1990)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning
• Roots in several fields in the social sciences and
socially oriented theories of learning (going back
to Vygotsky, G H Mead, and others)
• Focus on overarching concerns that attempts to
bridge the individual-social gap in interaction
• Common perspectives and sources of influence:
– Social constructivism
– Socio-cultural theories
– Situated and shared cognition
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Three factors that influence research
design and experiments
• Effects
• Conditions
– Group heterogeneity
– Individual prerequisites
– Task features
• Interactions
– Explanation
– Control
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Role of the computer
• Tool for analysis
– Interaction analysis
– Analyzing and modeling collaborative learning
practices, such as ..
• Negotiation
• Argumentation
• Mediating artifact
– This is not addressed in this article, but comes up in
later articles
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Concepts underlying CSCL research
•
Concepts of collaboration
Collaboration can be considered as a special form of interaction.
Engeström (1992) has elaborated a three-level notion of developmental
forms of interaction; coordination, cooperation, and reflective
communication.
According to another definition Collaboration can be defined as a
process of participating in knowledge communities. As pointed out by
Brufee (1993, p.3) collaboration is "a reculturative process that helps
students become members of knowledge communities whose common
property is different from the common property of the knowledge
communities they already belong to".
Collaboration as seen as a special form of interaction, and collaboration
as a process of participation in collective activities ("working together"),
include the idea of achieving shared goals. It appears that we can--that
perhaps we must--analyze collaborative activities on both micro and
macro levels.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Challenges and advantages of CSCL
•
•
Why has CSCL been so slowly adopted? As proposed by Kling
(1991) in the context of CSCW, it might be that the meanings
attached to collaboration are too positively loaded, or the
collaborative settings are interpreted too narrowly referring only to
positive phenomenon. This may restrict one from seeing that
collaborative situations are also full of contradictions, competition,
and conflicts.
On the other hand, technology offers the kind of potentials for
learning which are very different from those available in other
contexts. One self-evident benefit is, that computer networks break
down the physical and temporal barriers of schooling by removing
time and space constraints. The delay of asynchronous
communication allows time for reflection in interaction. Making
thinking visible by writing should help students to reflect on their
own and others' ideas and share their expertise.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Technology for collaboration
•
collaborative use of technology and collaborative technology
are different. Imagine a pair of students working at the
computer running a simulation program in physics. The
simulations on the screen can help the students to collaborate,
by creating a referential anchor, a point of shared reference
(Crook, 1994). This referential anchor can function as a
"concrete" shared representation, can support the negotiation
of meanings, and mediate students’ communication activities
in their development of reciprocal understanding
(Hakkarainen, et al., 1998; Järvelä, et. al., 1999). In this case,
the technology, the software developed for the individual
user, is utilized in creating and establishing collaborative
activities through its use as anchoring support.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
From technical to social
infrastructure
• One of the major challenges of CSCL, or
educational technology in general, is scaling-up;
how to expand and implement the good practices
that researcher and teachers have found and
developed.
• Bielaczyc (2001) has presented a parallel idea.
According to her, one of the key factors in
successful implementation of CSCL is to build
an appropriate social infrastructure around the
technical infrastructure.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
The multidisciplinary CSCL
•
•
•
•
CSCL can presently be characterized as consisting of three
methodological traditions: experimental, descriptive and
iterative design.
Many empirical studies follow the dominant experimental
paradigm that compares an intervention to a control condition
in terms of one or more variables.
The ethno-methodological tradition (exemplified in CSCL by
Koschmann et al., 2003; Koschmann et al., 2005; Roschelle,
1996; Stahl, 2006) is more suited for descriptive case
analyses.
The iterative design tradition is exemplified by Fischer &
Ostwald (2005), Lingnau, et al. (2003) and Guzdial et al.
(1997)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Summary (F4)
• Lipponen: To strengthen a set of coherent
foundations for CSCL. This task is absolutely
worthwhile of striving for, but also be a very
demanding task
• Stahl et al argued that CSCL requires a focus on the
meaning-making practices of collaborating groups
and on the design of technological artifacts to
mediate interaction. Whether this focus can, will or
should lead to a coherent theoretical framework and
research methodology for CSCL remains to be seen.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
A Model of Collaborative KnowledgeBuilding
• The paper (F5) present a model of learning as a
social process
• Individual minds in relation to socio-cultural
• Framework for the design of CSCL-SW (KBE)
• 5 theories of learning (Koschmann)
– The paper incorporating insights from these
theories/philosophies
• Multiple phases constitute a cycle =>
increasingly complex questions to be posed
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
A Diagram of Personal and Social
Knowledge-Building
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
The Idea of a Computer System to Support the
Knowledge-Building Process(1)
• A KBE should:
– go beyond a single-purpose system
– retain a record of the knowledge that was built
up
• And it should therefore probably be:
– “built on asynchronous, persistent
collaborative technologies and be deployed on
the Internet as a Web-based environment”
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Collaboration scripts
•
Collaboration script is a set of instructions specifying
how the group members should interact and collaborate
to solve a problem. O’Donnell & Dansereau 1992)
– Internal or external representations
•
•
•
A CSCL-script is a computational representation of a
collaborative script
A general modelling language for formalising
collaboration scripts is missing.
No tool for CSCL practitioners to create, reuse, integrate,
and customize CSCL scripts.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
IMS-LD as collaboration modeling
language
• Existing learning process modelling language IMSLD provides insufficient support to model groupbased, synchronous collaborative learning
activities.
• Some attempts have been done to extend IMS-LD,
but still no good solutions.
• The aim for the research work presented in this
paper is to develop a scripting language for
formalising CSCL scripts and exploring their
potential types of usage and system support
possibilities
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
An approach to formalize CSCL Scripts
CSCL Scripting language (from Miao et al., 2005)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Two modes in dealing with
Knowledge
Belief Mode
Summary spring 06
•
•
– Concerned with what we and other people believe or ought
to believe
– Our response to this mode is to agree or disagree, to present
arguments and evidence for or against, to express and try to
resolve doubts
– Ex. ideas that presented for consideration
Design Mode
– Concerned in the usefulness, adequacy, improvability and
development potential ideas
– The essence is IDEA IMPROVEMENT
– Ex. There is no ultimate computer because with each
advancement new possibilities arise for further advances
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Four constructivist educational
approaches in Design Mode
• Learning by Design (developed at Georgia
Tech.)
• Project-Based Science ( developed at the
University of Michigan)
• Problem-Based Learning (developed at
Southern Illinois University)
• Knowledge Building (developed at Ontario
Institute of Study in Education/University
of Toronto)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Problem-based learning vs. kn bldg
•
•
Problem-Based Learning
– Learners are expected to determine what information they need to
solve the problem and work together to achieve the solution with a
little direct help from the instructor.
– Is often treated as synonymous with project-based learning.
– Originated in the medical school to solve problem encounter in
practice & Grows out in different tradition and focus
– Disadvantage: Is not focused on tangible end product. The end
product is a problem solution – purely conceptual artifact.
Knowledge Building
– Defined as “creatively work with ideas that really matter to the people
doing the work”
– work directly aimed at creating and improving broadly significant
theories, problem formulations, interpretations and the like.
– Is the least bound to a particular activity structures and it is not
confined to particular occasions or subjects but pervades (or spread
through) mental life – and they claim in and out of school!!
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
•
•
Knowledge building vs. knowledge
construction
Knowledge building
May be defined as the production and continual
improvement of ideas of value to a community, through
means that increase the likelihood that what the community
accomplishes will be greater than the sum of individual
contributions and part of broader cultural efforts. [Bereiter
& Scardamalia, 1987, 1989, 1993].
Knowledge construction
Is evidenced by the accretion (accumulation) of
interpretations on an information base that is simultaneously
expanded by information seeking and transformations.
[Suthers, 2005]
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Technology to support knowledge
building
• Computer Support Intentional Learning
Environment (CSILE)
• Knowledge Forum
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
CSILE Study (Hakkarainen et al)
– The aim is to study how different practices of CSCL learning
influenced the epistemological nature of student’s inquiry.
– The focus is in examining the condition for which CSCL facilitates
higher-level practice inquiry in different classroom cultures (
Canadians and Finnish CSILE groups).
– Can be abstracted as from potentially culture-specific factors
– It is based on a conceptual, qualitative and quantitative analysis
– It does not give direct information about psychological process
involved in CSILE use
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Method
• Qualitative analysis of notes stored in CSILE database
• Five steps scale research questions classification
– Isolated Facts
– Partially Organized Facts
– Well-organized Fact
– Partial explanation
– Explanation
• Production was made at the level of ideas and several
observation
• Interaction was analyzed through the content of their
written communication with the use of CSILE network
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Results 1
• Canadian Classroom A
– has prominent role of a explanation-oriented process of
inquiry
– Higher proportion of explanation-seeking research
questions, explanatory level of scientific information
and intuitive knowledge
• Canadian Classroom B and Finnish
– Focused on processing factual knowledge and empirical
generalization
– Low proportion of explanation-oriented inquiry
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Recommendations
- All students, regardless of their individual
cognitive competencies, might remain at more
elementary level without the guidance of a teacher
- Students needs a great deal of pedagogical and
epistemological guidance to participate at a
process of level of inquiry analogous to scientific
inquiry
- There is a need of the teacher to have a pre-service
function and conceptual understanding of
advanced processes of knowledge-seeking inquiry
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Video-based research (workshop)
•
•
•
Emphasis on describing in detail the “wholeness” of what is going
on in a particular activity or situation.
Video-based Interaction Analysis (Jordan and Henderson,1995),
consists of :
– the in-depth micro-analysis of how people interact with one
another,
– their physical environment,
– and the documents, artifacts, and technologies in that
environment.
Jordan (1992) used video data to explicate how authoritative
knowledge is distributed in two highly computerized settings:
– an airline operations room, where knowledge is continually
jointly produced
– and a hospital setting, where it is vested in the technology and
the physician.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Advantages 
• The ability to document nonverbal behavior and
interpersonal communication (facial expressions
and emotions).
• It preserves the activity as it’s unfolding, so that the
data material can be validated by other researchers.
– Viewing it several times
– Comments from others
• Captures multiple views of a situation.
• Enables the researcher to participate in the activity
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Limitations 
• Do the recordings manipulate the reality?
• Note: without an exceptionally wide-angled lens, no camera can
record all activity in a classroom
• Capturing too much can also be a problem
• Confidentiality can be a problem
• Time consuming and expensive
– Large amount of data
– Expensive equipment
• Subjects may get influenced by the presence of a
camera
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Empirical studies
• The literature about distance education is
dominated by enthusiastic studies and accounts
• But some studies report the importance of
students’ isolation in distance education course
• Original research question was: ”How do the
students in B555 overcome their feelings of
isolation in a virtual classrom to create the
sense of a community of learning?”
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Methods
- Three different techniques was used :
- Observation: Online classrom discussion was
observed to grasp how the instructor facilitated the
dialogue among the students. And it was observed how
each student interacted with the Web site
- Interview: Was conducted immediately after the
students had finished their tasks on the Web
- Document review: Examination of various types of
documents realted to B555, including the course
syllabus, reading assigment, and the cataog`s course
description. And the instructor´s personal log
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Discussion
•
•
From the interviews and the observations it appared that
there were two foci of fustrations among the students, the
first was on the technological problems and the second
was on the course content and the instructur`s
practices in managing her communications with the
students
The Instructor belived that she had reduced the students
fustrations during the semester, but this was shown not to
be true, as the student only had expressed some of their
fustrations to the Instructor
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Findings cont’d
• Most articles about distance education emphasize the
positive aspects
• Only a few scholars examine important limitations
and pervasive problems
• According to the authors is time to seriously consider
the actual experience among students in distance
education courses an to critically discuss the
phenomena of distance education
• It is also question if technology can improve
pedagogy with little special effort
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Study 2
•
•
•
•
The objective of the study was to intensivly examine the
patterns of female and male students`participation in
computer-supported collaborative learning in two
classrooms
There are significant differences between male and
female students in their attitudes towards, knowledge
about, or use of computers (Durnell & Thompson, 1997,
Hakkarainen et.al, 2000, Scott, Cole &Engel, 1992)
Male students are generally more enthusiastic about the
use of information and communication technologies
Female students experience computer phobia or tend to
minimize the use of their computers
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Method
•
•
-
-
Participants; Classrooms A and B
Classroom A, 19 female, 9 male
Classroom B, 10 female, 20 male
Study material; The CSILE database
Qualitative analysis of the students’ written comments
posted to the database within one academic year
The comments was first partitioned into ideas
Then the comments were classified according to type of
communicative idea (agreement, neutral or disagreement)
Communicative ideas within a comment were analyzed by
specifying the object of inquiry: Linguistic form, research
question, research methods, information, explanation, other
or unspecified
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Results 1
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Results cont’d
• Patterns of interaction
- The analysis indicated that CSILE
students`network of interaction was rather dense
in both of the classroms
- Also indicated that the students preferred to
communicate within their own gender group.
This was stronger in classroom A than classroom
B
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Interaction analysis (workshop)
• Capture speech, gestures, use of artefacts (’social
and material), distributed activity…
• Individual/Collective/Relations
• How detailed trajectories…
• … in relation to time, space, semiotic layers?
• Multiple levels (’zooming’)
• Transcriptions
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Problem identification
• ”The black box of peer group learning”
(Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M., 1999).
• The Phenomenon? Meaning making, new type
activity, negotiations…
• Unit of analysis? Episodes?
• When/How can we make assumptions and
claims from qualitative data? Corpus? Theory
(abduction)? From review of literature?
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Methods for design
• In the same way we have methods for
evaluation we have methods for design
• I have chosen to put different approaches
to design under the umbrella of “design
techniques” and to focus on them in detail
• There are other ways to approach design,
some of them more general, others specific
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Design techniques
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scenario-based design
Empirical-based design
Participatory design
Theory-based design
Evolutionary design
The techniques are partially overlapping
and are often used in combination
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Empirical-based design (also called
iterative design, prototyping)
• Suggest answers to empirical questions
• Involving real users in order to support their
needs, not the needs of system developers,
• Iterations of system building and evaluation with
users
• Evaluation is often done in “usability labs”, but
can also be done using other means
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Participatory design
•
•
•
•
•
•
User participation in the early phases of system
development
Users are considered equal partners with developers
Often referred to as “Scandinavian approach” to system
development (democratic design)
Understand what goes on at the workplace and in the
interaction between workers
Technology is “mediating artefact” alongside other
artefacts such as profession-oriented languages
Mutual learning and use of low-fidelity prototyping
techniques
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Evolutionary design
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a new system based on an existing one
This is often the default approach for many developers, even
without being aware of it, because many developers have a
repertoire of tools to build from
Start from something that already works and available to low
level inspection and code reuse
Find out what can be improved and add the improvements to
the existing working system
Can be used in different ways
– within one system (e.g. extending an open source system);
– from one generation of system to another (e.g. product families);
– and from one technology to another (mock up to computer display)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Knowledge building using
Knowledge Forum (see PDF)
• Separate foils :
–
–
–
–
–
The Learning Sciences
CSILE/KF
Projects: A KB perspective
Core elements
Screen dumps of Knowledge Forum (should
understand how the system is used by students)
– Scaffolds (check this in particular)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Reusable learning objects
•
Movements in the Learning Object Economy
– Historical summary showing various definitions and criticizing them
•
Towards a Concept of the Reusable Learning Object (LO)
– Setting the principles of LO foundation
•
Creating Learning Objects
– LOs and principles of learning intent and reusability
•
Developing Learning Objects
– Conceptualization and Collaborative development
•
Standards and Specifications for Developing Learning Objects
– Standards enables genuinely sharable and reusable content objects
•
Learning Objects and Electronic Books
– Differences between e-books and material books
– The role of LOs in the construction of e-books
•
Conclusion
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Multiple definitions of learning objects
•
•
•
•
Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata v6.1:
– LO is defined as any entity, digital or non-digital. Non-digital objects
such as computer hardware and digital objects like images enjoy the
same conceptual status, thereby making it impossible to use the term
Learning Object in a meaningful way.
Wiley, David. A. (2002):
– ”LO is any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.” a
broad characterization classifying every digital asset as a LO.
L'Allier, James J. (1997):
– ”LO is the smallest independent structural experience that contains an
objective, a learning activity and an assessment."
Based on these foundational principles LO can be defined as:
– A Learning Object is an independent and self-standing unit of
learning content that is predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional
context
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
LOs are the most meaningful and effective way of creating content for elearning
The current definitions and practices of LOs are confusing and arbitrary
They will never be able to avail themselves of the flexibility, scalability
and speed offered by information technology
Necessary with a commonly accepted, accurate and functionally effective
definition of a LO
Establish a concept of the LO that clearly lays out the principle basis on
which it is founded
Need to reengineer the design and development process of LOs
Developers should embrace a multidisciplinary and cooperative model of
development
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Description of the ITCOLE software
•
The pilot version FLE2 (now 3) is cross platform and HTML based for end users
•
The ITCOLE/ Fle3 environment will contain several tools:
– Virtual Web Top – storing and sharing documents, java applets etc.
– KB module – facilitates between-user interaction, multiple discussions
– Jam session – encourages free flow of ideas allows experimentation
– Meeting room – collaborative multi-user applications (whiteboard, chat etc.)
– Library - store, publish and browse diff. learning materials
•
Provide external structures that help a student to participate in expert like
processing of knowledge without increasing the cognitive processing load.
– Participation in depth learning, scaffolding the users
– Tools for students to record and visually represent their activity
– Challenge: design interface helping users to manage knowledge produced
•
Important challenge of ITCOLE is to design tools that help to represent progress of
discussions by graphical means.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Design objectives
•
The objective for ITCOLE is to build a pedagogical interface for educational
use
•
The objective can be divided into three main aims:
– Scalability – universal access for different user/browser configurations
– Usefulness - full set of features to enable collaborative KB - system functionality
– Usability – user friendly and attractive graphical design – flexible and customizable
•
Some screenshots from Fle3: http://fle3.uiah.fi/screen_shots/index.html
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Pedagogical agents in CSCL
Goal / intentions
• To integrate pedagogical agents with
• collaborative environments (synchronous and asynchronous)
Findings/Contributions
(1) A design space for classifying pedagogical agents: presentation, intervention,
task, and pedagogy,
(2) A series of attempts that shows it is possible to take advantage of statistical
information in collaborative learning environments without detailed student
modeling,
(3) An approach to represent ‘common attitude’ and principles associated with
collaborative performance, and
(4) customizable agents to address the imprecision dilemma associated with
providing agent-based assistance in poorly structured knowledge domains.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Claims
•
•
•
A distributed learning environment has a set of “rules”
and “roles” for how to interact.
These rules and roles are not straight forward for most
participants. The “player” need to learn at least one role
in order to successfully participate e.g. to be a
collaborator.
When this set of rules-and-roles is internalized and
shared among the other users, it may improve
participation and collaboration.
If software agents are allowed to reason with these
representations, conceptual awareness can be trigged by
a computational mechanism.
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Methods
• Inspiration from related work (evolutionary
design)
– Teamwave Workplace
– Future Learning Environment (FLE)
• Empirical studies
– Wizard of Oz technique (simulation experiment)
– Trials in high schools (design experiment)
• Iterative design (integrating agents with the
systems and evaluating the results)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Findings from the simulation
experiment
CoPAS
wizards
Message
alternatives
Tool Agent
23 (12 new) 82.5%
42
Domain Agent
19 (6 new)
63%
34
Collaboration Agent
15 (1 new)
86.5%
56
All wizards
57 (19 new) 77%
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
Message
actually used
Number of messages
sent to all five groups
132
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Pedagogical agent dimensions
Four dimensions which are relevant to adopt:
1) Presentation
2) Intervention
3) Task
4) Pedagogy
a) collaboration principles
b) knowledge building
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Definition of awareness &
conceptual awareness
“an understanding of the activities of
others, which provides a context for
your own activity” (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992)
“an understanding of the generalized
activities of others, which provides a
context for your own activity”
(Mørch, Jondahl & Dolonen, 2005)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Supporting argumentation discourse
• Classroom instruction need to be centred around
students’ active learning and take into account
research that demonstrates that students’ prior
knowledge is significant factor for active learning
• That the focus on students’ work should transcend
the declarative to include procedural and strategic
knowledge – reason and reflect meta-cognitively on
their own learning and the construction and
evaluation of scientific knowledge
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Argumentation in classrooms
•
This requires a focus on
– How evidence is used in science for the construction of explanations
– Evaluate the selection of evidence and the construction of explanations
•
Debate and argumentation around competing theories,
methodologies and aims are central to doing and learning
science
– This requires that students engage in practicing and using this form
of discourse in a range of structured activities
– This will support the social construction of knowledge, exposing
student thinking and enabling its critical evaluation by the teacher,
the student and his/her peers
•
This is central to CSCL
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
Components of argumentation
• Argumentation as a war that seeks to establish a
winner, or ..
• as a social and collaborative process necessary to
solve problems and advance knowledge
(e.g. Toulmin – warrants and backings used to make
claims are shaped by the guiding conceptions and
values of the field/community)
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
TOOL5100: CSCL
Summary spring 06
How can teachers foster and improve
the quality of the argument?
• Encourage and sustain argument oriented discourse
(warrant, claim, backings, qualifiers)
• Content oriented?
• These two aspects are intertwined
– [arguments are more general and the content is more
specific]
•
Combination of multiple techniques to foster sustained
argumentation practices – such as student presentations,
small-group discussions, teaching argumentation skills
and discourse
• How can CSCL take these issues into account?
A. Mørch, 16.05.2006
Descargar

Document